Case law

Washington Public Interest Organization v. Public Service Commission

393 A.2d 71 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Sep 12, 1978

Second, and of equal importance, the Commission has a duty to explain clearly how its criteria are satisfied by the rate order — how it arrived at the particular result. … We do not mean to imply that had that not been the case, value-appreciations would necessarily have been immune to claims of farepayers.

Al-Mahdi v. United States

867 A.2d 1011 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Feb 10, 2005

“[Wjhere, following a hearing, the defendant has established a substantial likelihood of actual prejudice from the unauthorized contact, ... … “Our review is deferential because the question of prejudice turns substantially on the judge’s appraisal of the juror’s demeanor ... and is therefore one about which the trial judge is ‘especially qualified to render a sound

Rosenthal v. Sonnenschein Nath & Rosenthal, LLP

985 A.2d 443 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Dec 24, 2009

The Agreement vests in the Policy and Planning (P & P) Committee the authority to set, and readjust every two years, the percentage of net firm income to be earned by each equity partner “in accordance with procedures established … But Judge Platt was clearly aware of many of the facts SNR later alleged as proof of deception and dishonesty by Rosenthal and Constantine Cannon, including the apparent effort he described “to leave SNR in the dark about

Angarano v. United States

329 A.2d 453 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Dec 2, 1974

We will leave this to another day or, rather, until such time as we may have before us a party qualified to raise the issue on a factual record. … Clearly, petitioner did not receive the effective assistance of counsel which we have held essential. . .."

Hsieh v. Formosan Ass'n for Public Affairs

District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Jun 6, 2024

The Superior Court granted summary judgment in favor of FAPA, determining that appellant failed to provide sufficient evidence to support a finding that he suffered from a qualifying disability under the DCHRA and failed … Blaauw thought that perhaps FAPA should find a spot in the organization for appellant “beyond the writing obligation, because, clearly, he was not good at that.”

Wallace G. Mitchell v. United States

80 A.3d 962 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Dec 12, 2013

Mitchell seeks to qualify several items as newly discovered evidence under the IPA. … Mitchell argues that while the affidavit does not assert his innocence, “the reasonable inference is clearly implied.” No doubt that these allegations, if true, constitute appalling conduct by the police.

Economides v. District of Columbia Board of Zoning Adjustment

954 A.2d 427 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Aug 14, 2008

That application clearly states on its face that the nature of the work was to reconfigure the apartment house.... ” Id. … There is no similar requirement that a retaining wall have a roof in order for it to qualify as a structure, however.

W.H. v. D.W.

78 A.3d 327 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Oct 24, 2013

Furthermore, they believe that if J.W. does not qualify for custody of the children under the Act, then sole physical and legal custody of the children should be given to D.W. … Standard of Review and Applicable Legal Principles “Whether appellants have standing is a question of law reviewed de novo; however, underlying factual determinations are reviewed under the clearly erroneous standard.”

In Re OM

565 A.2d 573 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Oct 27, 1989

Although a juvenile petition does not technically charge a crime, the rendition procedures established by the Compact for juveniles charged with delinquency are designed to be essentially the same as those long established … First, New Jersey's participation in the Compact itself is qualified by a statute, enacted when New Jersey became a signatory to the Compact, which provides that a juvenile may not be returned to the demanding state "where

Matter of Dwyer

399 A.2d 1 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Feb 9, 1979

Dwyer suggested to Henderson and his wife, Yvonne, who had made some payments in his behalf, that he file an affidavit to qualify as an indigent under the Criminal Justice Act. He did so. Subsequently, Mrs. … Nevertheless the Board in holding the hearing committee’s conclusion “clearly supportable” mentioned inter alia its finding that it appeared that Mrs.

Wei Hua Wu v. United States

798 A.2d 1083 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · May 23, 2002

First, neither appellant raised in the trial court a claim that their translators were incompetent or that they were not qualified properly by the court during the proceedings. … The trial court’s factual findings are not clearly erroneous, therefore, we will not disturb them.

Miller v. United States

District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Nov 6, 2025

Standard of Review “When reviewing a trial court’s denial of a motion to suppress evidence, we defer to the court’s factual findings unless they are clearly erroneous, but we review the court’s legal conclusions … There was no evidence that Officer Strong was aware of the reports about a gun, but, under the “firmly established” collective-knowledge doctrine, “although individual officers may not have sufficient knowledge to establish

Howard University v. Best

484 A.2d 958 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Nov 9, 1984

Best, unless one ignores the more specific one-year notice provision which clearly applies to faculty in their *969 final probationary year. … The trial court directed a verdict against her on the grounds that the evidence established a qualified privilege; there was insufficient evidence of publication outside of the faculty; and the report was not defamatory on

Goldston v. United States

562 A.2d 96 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Jul 6, 1989

The police consequently established a look-out post at that address where they remained for most of the day. … To begin with, although facially against his penal interest, the admission clearly was not contrary to his penal interest because he has never been identified and has previously gathered information through uncontrolled purchases

MONTGOMERY BLAIR SIBLEY v. ST. ALBANS SCHOOL

134 A.3d 789 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Mar 24, 2016

This court will reverse a trial court‟s decision only if it is “clearly  12 unreasonable, arbitrary, or fanciful.” Kay, 711 A.2d at 1256. … Even read in the light most favorable to appellant, McCarthy‟s statement in the letter is qualified as a hope and appellant‟s affidavit makes clear that the alleged statement (to the extent McCarthy made a statement beyond

In Re Cleaver-Bascombe

892 A.2d 396 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Feb 9, 2006

To establish a violation of Rule 8.4(d), Bar Counsel must demonstrate by clear and convincing evidence that: 1. … The Committee found that Bar Counsel had established by clear and convincing evidence that Respondent did not meet with Whitley at the jail on February 15, 2002.

Grayson v. AT & T CORP.

980 A.2d 1137 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Sep 17, 2009

the meaning of the FCA.” 68 In addition, even assuming that he qualifies as an “original source” under the FCA, Mr. … Grayson alleges that an owner of a prepaid calling card “pays a deposit for the card [to] establish!]

In Re Robinson

736 A.2d 983 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Aug 19, 1999

669 A.2d 731, 738 (D.C.1995); In re Hutchinson, 534 A.2d 919, 924 (D.C.1987) (en banc). 11 In In re Kersey, supra, and its progeny, we have recognized certain limited situations where otherwise sanctionable misconduct may qualify … that her conduct since discipline was originally recommended (e.g., failing to follow her practice monitor’s advice and develop an adequate system for case management and client communication) indicates that she does not clearly

Glick v. Baltimore & Ohio Railroad

19 D.C. 412 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Dec 15, 1890

Clearly this *418 provision did not, in any way, affect the powers of the company north of that point. It could still select the streets which it would occupy north of H street. … Justice Cox, said: “In the first place, the jury ought to be educated to discriminate clearly between a rightful and wrong use of the streets.”

1111 19th Street Associates v. District of Columbia

521 A.2d 260 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Feb 18, 1987

But the actual controversies emanate from issues involving whether particular property had previously been assessed and therefore did not qualify as “omitted property.” … The omitted property assessments of the taxpayer’s improvements were made in late 1981, clearly before expiration of the statutory period and were not untimely.